[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 5]
[Senate]
[Pages 7259-7271]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



 NOMINATION OF JOHN ROBERT BOLTON OF MARYLAND TO BE UNDER SECRETARY OF 
       STATE FOR ARMS CONTROL AND INTERNATIONAL SECURITY--Resumed

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the clerk 
will report the nomination.
  The legislative clerk read the nomination of John Robert Bolton of 
Maryland to be Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and 
International Security.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, it is my understanding the time until 10:15 
is reserved for proponents and opponents of this nomination; is that 
true?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order three 
Senators each control 15 minutes.
  Mr. REID. Senators Dorgan, Biden, and Helms, is that right?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. That is correct.
  Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent the time on the quorum call I will 
suggest be divided equally among the three Senators.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. REID. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, how much time am I allowed?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Twelve minutes.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, the Senate will vote this morning on the 
nomination by President Bush of Mr. John Bolton to be Under Secretary 
of State for Arms Control.
  This is a terrible nomination. I indicated yesterday that I don't 
know Mr. John Bolton. I have not met him. But I have read a great deal 
about what he said about a number of issues. To nominate Mr. John 
Bolton to be Under Secretary of State for Arms Control defies logic.
  Arms control is a very important subject. The question of whether 
this country is going to assume the responsibility to lead 
internationally in stopping the spread of nuclear weapons is a very 
important question.
  Are we going to be a world leader in stopping the spread of nuclear 
weapons or not? Are we going to be a leader in trying to make this a 
safer world? Are we going to be a leader in trying to reduce the number 
of nuclear weapons that exist in this world?
  The answer from the President, it seems to me, in sending this 
nomination to the Senate is no; we don't intend to lead on anything. We 
intend to do our own thing notwithstanding what anybody else thinks 
about it, and notwithstanding the consequences with respect to the 
reduction of additional nuclear weapons and delivery systems.
  Mr. Bolton has virtually no experience in the field of arms control. 
He has never served in an arms control position in any form. He is 
qualified perhaps for the dismantling of the systems of arms control as 
we know it. But he is not the person we would want consulting on arms 
control with our allies, and he is not the person we want negotiating 
treaties.
  Mr. Bolton has expressed disdain for arms control and those who 
promote it. Let me give you some examples.
  We had a debate on the floor of the Senate a year and a half ago on 
the subject of a comprehensive nuclear test-ban treaty. Our country has 
already decided to stop testing nuclear weapons. We decided that in the 
early 1990s. So the question wasn't for us. We had already decided to 
stop testing nuclear weapons. The question was whether we would join in 
a treaty with many other countries around the world--a treaty that has 
something like 150 different signatories. Would we join in that treaty 
to try to stop others from testing nuclear weapons? Regrettably, the 
answer by this Senate was no; we don't want to do that.
  I think it was a terrible mistake. What an awful day for the Senate 
to say no. We stopped nuclear testing, but we don't want to join in a 
treaty to try to promote others to stop nuclear testing. What an awful 
thing for the Senate to do. The Senate has a right to do that. Of 
course, I think it was an awful mistake.
  What happened when we turned down the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban 
Treaty? Mr. John Bolton says the supporters of the Comprehensive 
Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty are timid and neopacifists. That is the way he 
described those who support efforts to

[[Page 7260]]

have an international treaty to stop nuclear testing.
  Then he states on the issue of treaties and arms control and so on 
that international law is not really law at all.
  Quoting him, ``While treaties may be politically or even morally 
binding, they are not legally obligatory. They are just not law as we 
apprehend the term.''
  That is a statement by Mr. Bolton.
  He says with respect to our allies who try to put pressure on us to 
pass the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty, that the Canadian 
Premier is ``moral posturing.'' The Sun calls Mr. Bolton one of ``Tony 
Blair's strongest critics.'' He says, ``The Europeans can be sure that 
America's days as a well-bred doormat for EU political and military 
protections are coming to an end.''
  Then he gloated at the end of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban 
Treaty and its defeat, and said the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban 
Treaty is dead.
  He has been highly critical of the agreed-upon framework under which 
North Korea pledged to free its nuclear weapons program, and he says 
the United States suffers no downside if we never normalize relations 
with North Korea. Certainly South Korea and Japan, our friends, don't 
agree with him.
  He thinks the United States should not give Taiwan diplomatic 
recognition as an independent country, in contradiction of several 
decades of official American policy. He says we have no vital interest 
in Kosovo or the rest of the Balkans. Tell that to the Europeans and 
the U.S. troops whose presence there stopped the genocide and stopped 
the killing of thousands or perhaps tens of thousands of people.
  I think the world is going to see, if the Senate confirms this 
nomination, that Mr. Bolton's appointment is another sign of the 
President's hard line on these issues, as a unilateral policy to 
abandon ABM, or to get rid of the ABM Treaty, or ignore it, build a 
destabilizing national missile defense system, ignore the Kyoto treaty, 
abandon talks with North Korea, and oppose the international criminal 
court and the international landmine convention.
  I think the signal is going to be quite clear if this Senate agrees 
with this President and puts John Bolton in as Under Secretary for Arms 
Control.
  He comes to this position with very little experience, and with an 
attitude about these issues that is antithetical to the progress that 
we are making in these areas.
  I mentioned that we have tens of thousands of nuclear weapons in this 
world. Russia has somewhere perhaps between 20,000 and 30,000 strategic 
and theater nuclear weapons. We have tens of thousand of nuclear 
weapons. There are a handful of other countries that have joined the 
nuclear club and have access to nuclear weapons. Many other countries 
want to possess nuclear weapons and are achieving and aspiring to try 
to get nuclear weapons. Some terrorists want nuclear weapons.
  The question is, Will our country for our security and the security 
of the world provide a leadership role in trying to stop the spread of 
nuclear weapons? Will we be aggressive and vigilant? Will we be world 
leaders on this issue? Not if we decide to confirm the nomination of 
John Bolton. He is not someone who believes in arms control. He is not 
someone who believes in arms reduction.
  The fact is, we have reduced the number of nuclear weapons not nearly 
far enough, but we have reduced the number of nuclear weapons in this 
world through the arms control agreements we have had with the old 
Soviet Union and now Russia.
  The fact is, we have sawed the wings off Soviet bombers and long-
range bombers. We have dismantled them. We have dismantled their 
submarines. We have dismantled their nuclear warheads? Why? Because we 
and the Russians have agreed upon a regimen of reducing nuclear 
weapons. Are we going to stop all of that? Are we going to make more 
and more determined efforts to continue it and do even more?
  In my judgment, we should continue this approach. In my judgment, 
this leads to a safer world.
  But we have now this nomination that comes to us today that is very 
distressful--having an administration put someone in a position whose 
job it is to deal with the issue of arms control who doesn't believe in 
arms control, who doesn't believe in treaties, who doesn't believe in a 
regimen of trying to stop nuclear testing, and believes that treaties 
and agreements have no legal impact at all and no effect.
  He believes that we should just go it alone, apparently, 
notwithstanding what others want or say.
  We are going to move into a very delicate and very difficult 
circumstance very soon. In addition to their being tens of thousands of 
nuclear weapons that now exist in this world and precious little effort 
to try to reduce them, and turning away from basic arms control 
agreements, including the ABM Treaty which has been the centerfold in 
attempts that have resulted in arms reduction--in addition to all of 
that--apparently we are deciding to build a national missile defense 
system to protect against a less likely threat: a rogue nation or a 
terrorist acquiring an ICBM, loading it with a nuclear tip and sending 
it to this country.
  They are much more likely to load a pick-up truck with a nuclear bomb 
and threaten this country.
  If we build a national missile defense and say it doesn't matter what 
others do, ignore nuclear arms treaties resulting in larger buildups 
and more weapons and delivery vehicles by the Russians, the Chinese and 
others, will we be safer, and will the world be safer with a national 
missile defense system to protect us against a Russian threat, or 
against a Chinese threat? The answer is clearly no.
  My feeling is that we are at a moment in time in this country that is 
very important. We have reached the moment in this world that is very 
important. We have seen an explosion of nuclear weapons by Pakistan and 
India--two countries that don't like each other. They are building 
nuclear weapons.
  We have seen circumstances with the Chinese and the Russians and the 
Europeans, and the others, who are concerned about us going it alone. 
As a columnist for the Washington Post said: Built to suit our 
interests and damn the other interests. It doesn't matter what the 
others think.
  That, in my judgment, is very troubling, to try to find a way to have 
world leadership to stop the spread of nuclear weapons and to provide 
world leadership to reduce the number of nuclear weapons.
  Mr. President, how much time is remaining?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from North Dakota has 1 
minute 45 seconds.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I know others wish to speak today, and I 
spoke at some length yesterday about this issue. But I want to end by 
saying the following: All I know about this nominee is what he has 
said, what he has established as a public record. It is, in my 
judgment, antithetical to what we ought to aspire to be and what we 
ought to aspire to see from someone in the position we expect to 
provide leadership on arms control.
  He, in fact, in my judgment, will not and cannot because he does not 
believe in arms control. He does not believe in doing this on the basis 
of reaching out with others to try to reduce the number of nuclear 
weapons with treaties and arms control agreements. He does not believe 
in trying to stop the testing through treaties of nuclear weapons, the 
Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty.
  In my judgment, if this Senate sees fit today to vote positively on 
this nomination, we will have taken a significant step backwards. We 
will have impeded the efforts of this country to be a world leader in 
areas that really matter.
  I hope the Senate will think long and hard about this and decide to 
tell the President this nomination is not appropriate for the position 
of Under Secretary of State for Arms Control.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, in a few moments, the Senate will vote on 
the

[[Page 7261]]

President's nomination of John Bolton for Undersecretary of State for 
Arms Control and International Security. I am under no illusions about 
the fact that Mr. Bolton will be confirmed for this position. But I 
will vote against him, because I believe his views on the issues for 
which he will have responsibility are inconsistent with the best 
interests of the United States.
  President Bush has promised to work with our friends and allies to 
build a new framework for U.S. policies on arms control and 
international security. But his nomination of John Bolton to be the 
principal advisor to the Secretary of State on these issues is just one 
of many steps that have sent a decidedly mixed message about his 
commitment to pursuing a thoughtful, cooperative approach.
  In the last several weeks, President Bush has withdrawn the United 
States from the Kyoto Protocol, sent the South Korean President home 
with no commitment that we will continue to work on reducing the 
dangers from North Korea's ballistic missile program, reversed a more 
than 20-year-old United States policy that has kept the peace in the 
Taiwan Strait, and announced that the United States will no longer 
concern itself with negotiations to control and reduce the strategic 
nuclear arsenal of the former Soviet Union. Last week, in what will 
assuredly not be the last evidence of growing concern and impatience 
with U.S. unilateralism, we were voted off the U.N. Human Rights 
Commission, to the delight of human rights abusers everywhere. This 
growing unilateralism is very troubling to those of us who understand 
that the interests of the American people are best protected when we 
work in concert with others on common interests and problems.
  Senate confirmation of John Bolton to be Undersecretary of State for 
Arms Control and International Security will be another serious blow to 
U.S. leadership on these important issues. Over the last 8 years, John 
Bolton has expressed extreme views on a wide range of U.S. foreign 
policy issues. He has belittled the United Nations, referred to 
supporters of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty as neo-pacifists, 
labeled our closest allies ``appeasers'' for opposing sanctions policy 
also opposed by Vice President Cheney, and questioned whether the 
United States is ever legally bound by its treaty obligations.
  I find John Bolton's views most troubling on the arms control issues 
over which he will exercise a great deal of influence in this position. 
He is a staunch opponent of important treaties--including the 
Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, the ABM Treaty, and the Ottawa 
Convention banning antipersonnel land mines which he has criticized as 
unenforceable, while at the same time opposing the development of 
international enforcement mechanisms. His antagonism to arms control 
threatens the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT), a cooperative, 
verifiable agreement that has effectively kept the nuclear weapons club 
to very low numbers for more than three decades span. But future 
international participation in the NPT is inextricably tied to the 
stability of treaties that Mr. Bolton has condemned. So too is the 
success of our cooperative nuclear threat-reduction measures with 
Russia.
  Mr. Bolton has also consistently advocated that the United States 
give diplomatic recognition to Taiwan, a position at odds with decades 
of U.S. policy and with President Bush's declared One China stance. 
From 1994-1996, the Taiwanese government paid $30,000 to Mr. Bolton for 
several papers on Taiwan and the U.N. It is troubling that during this 
time Mr. Bolton testified about this same issue before two House 
subcommittees. Should he be confirmed, Mr. Bolton will play a major 
role in overseeing United States arms sales to Taiwan, one of the most 
important--and most potentially volatile--issues in United States 
policy toward Asia. While the State Department has signed off on 
ethical questions surrounding this possible conflict of interest, I 
believe United States arms sales policy toward Taiwan can not help but 
be affected--least in perception, if not in fact--by Mr. Bolton's past 
relationship with the Government of Taiwan.
  On another issue of great importance to stability in Asia, Mr. Bolton 
has criticized the Clinton administration's efforts to freeze North 
Korea's nuclear and ballistic missile programs as ``egregiously 
wrong.'' This despite the undisputed facts that the 1994 Agreed 
Framework has successfully stopped Pyongyang's nuclear program and more 
recent talks have convinced North Korea to unilaterally suspend its 
missile tests until 2003.
  President Bush is now reviewing United States policy toward North 
Korea, which I hope will conclude with a decision to continue talks 
with Pyongyang about the future of its missile program. While I am 
sympathetic to the President's desire to review past policy, I believe 
it would be a mistake to walk away from a dialogue that holds out the 
possibility of a verifiable agreement to freeze North Korea's missile 
program and halt their missile sales. John Bolton has taken a 
dismissive view of the value of dialogue with Pyongyang, and I am 
deeply concerned that adding his voice to the administration's debate 
on this issue will further undermine the United States interest in 
advancing peace and stability on the Korean Peninsula.
  Finally, while Mr. Bolton's testimony before the Foreign Relations 
Committee seemed to suggest that his current views are more moderate 
than his writings indicate, I remain perplexed by the question of what 
views he will take with him into this administration. This is not an 
academic or inappropriate issue to raise. While, ultimately, Mr. 
Bolton's personal opinions will be subsumed by the decisions of the 
Secretary of State and the President, he will have an enormous amount 
of influence in the policy debates that shape those decisions. I find 
it difficult to imagine that a man who has dedicated his life to public 
service on behalf of a set of values that he has taken the time to 
articulate in public writings will suddenly cease to advocate on behalf 
of those values at exactly the moment when his ability to influence 
public debate is at its zenith.
  Mr. President, the United States has a strong interest in maintaining 
and advancing transparent, verifiable arms control regimes and stopping 
the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. These issues are far 
too important to be left in the hands of a man who has denied their 
very legitimacy. I urge my colleagues to vote against this nominee.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the Constitution gives the Senate the power 
to advise and consent on the President's nominations. This is a 
responsibility that I take very seriously. While I believe the 
President is entitled to the benefit of the doubt when selecting the 
senior members of his team, the Senate is not a rubber stamp, and there 
are times where a careful review leads one to the conclusion that a 
nomination must be opposed.
  President Bush has made some excellent choices for several of the top 
foreign policy positions in his administration--from Colin Powell for 
Secretary of State to Howard Baker for Ambassador to Japan. But the 
nomination of Mr. Bolton is not one of those choices. I will oppose the 
nomination of John Bolton for the position of Under Secretary of State 
for Arms Control and International Security, because I have serious 
concerns about Mr. Bolton's experience, his diplomatic temperament, and 
his record.
  Before proceeding further, it should be stated that it is becoming 
increasingly clear that there is a double standard in the Senate's 
treatment of President Bush's nominees and those of President Clinton. 
During the Clinton administration, nominations often languished for 
months--and in some cases years--before the Senate, without ever coming 
to the floor for a vote. However, when Democrats object to a Bush 
administration nomination, Republicans cry foul and accuse Democrats of 
not playing by the rules.
  This double standard is evident with this nomination. President 
Clinton's choice for Under Secretary for Arms Control and International 
Security was John Holum. After being confirmed by the Senate by voice 
vote, Mr. Holum served as Director for the Arms Control and Disarmament 
Agency, ACDA,

[[Page 7262]]

for 6 years. When ACDA was going to be folded into the State 
Department, President Clinton made a sound decision to nominate Mr. 
Holum to be the Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and 
International Security. Despite his qualifications, a few Republicans 
blocked John Holum's nomination for nearly 2 years, successfully 
preventing a vote. This stands in stark contrast to President Bush's 
selection for the very same position. The nomination of Mr. Bolton--who 
unlike Mr. Holum is not well qualified for this position--is being 
voted on by the full Senate after just 2 months.
  The first reason that I oppose this nomination is because Mr. Bolton 
does not have the requisite experience for the job. I am aware that he 
has some solid foreign policy credentials, previously serving on the 
Commission on International Religious Freedom, as Assistant Secretary 
of State for International Organization Affairs, and as Assistant 
Administrator of USAID for Program and Policy Coordination. But John 
Bolton has been nominated for the senior position at the State 
Department responsible for supervising and managing complicated 
negotiations for arms control and nonproliferation issues. In these 
areas, his experience is seriously deficient.
  This is no time to learn on the job. We are confronted by a complex 
and rapidly changing security environment, which will require sensitive 
diplomatic negotiations and consultations on a wide range of 
international security matters with our friends, allies, and 
adversaries. We need someone in this position with long experience and 
a proven track record on these issues--which Mr. Bolton does not have.
  Second, as Senator Biden appropriately pointed out at Mr. Bolton's 
confirmation hearing, Mr. Bolton lacks the diplomatic temperament for 
this job.
  He is prone to making confusing statements and using inflammatory 
rhetoric against those with whom he does not agree. He once stated that 
``Republicans are adults on foreign policy questions, and we define 
what we're willing to do militarily and politically by what is in the 
best interests of the United States.'' What does this mean? Do 
Democrats not act in the best interests of the United States? Are 
Democrats like Lee Hamilton, Sam Nunn, and James Sasser not adults on 
foreign policy? It is a ludicrous and offensive statement.
  On another occasion, Mr. Bolton attacked those who were concerned 
about the defeat of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, CTBT. 
Some were worried that the Senate's decision to vote down a major 
international security pact for the first time since the Treaty of 
Versailles could signal a turn toward isolationism. Mr. Bolton's 
response was that these reactions were ``indications of a profoundly 
misguided and potentially dangerous philosophy in American foreign 
policy'' and that people who held this view were ``timid and neo-
pacifist.'' Again, is being vigilant about the possibility of American 
isolationism, something that contributed to the Second World War, timid 
or neo-pacifist? What is a neo-pacifist, anyway?
  And with respect to the International Criminal Court, ICC, Mr. Bolton 
said that ``[s]upport for the International Criminal Court concept is 
based largely on emotional appeals to an abstract ideal of an 
international judicial system unsupported by any meaningful evidence 
and running contrary to sound principles of international crisis 
resolution.'' Why was the decision to sign the Treaty, and join 139 
other nations including 17 of our NATO allies, emotional? Is it not 
rational to conclude that signing the Treaty enables us to maintain the 
maximum influence over the ongoing negotiations and obtain additional 
concessions in the process?
  These are representative of statements from Mr. Bolton that are 
confusing, inaccurate and inflammatory. While those of us in politics 
are used to this sort of thing, effective international diplomacy is 
not conducted in this manner. It is not the kind of temperament that we 
need from our most senior arms control official at the State 
Department.
  I am also deeply concerned about Mr. Bolton's record on arms control 
and nonproliferation agreements and his views on international law. 
Although he has supported some security treaties in the past, he is 
philosophically opposed to most of the treaties that comprise the 
foundation of the international nonproliferation regime. He once said 
that the CTBT and other treaties are ``unenforceable'' and provide 
``illusionary protections.'' Moreover, he argued that ``[w]hile 
treaties may well be politically or even morally binding, they are not 
legally obligatory. They are just not `law' as we apprehend them.'' In 
fact, the principle that treaties and other forms of international law 
are binding is widely accepted. Whether trading with other nations or 
insisting on the right to traverse international water or airspace, we 
rely on treaties and international agreements to protect our interests.
  It is true that treaties and other agreements are just one part of 
international security. Nevertheless, they are an extremely important 
part. Mr. Bolton's statements make me seriously question his commitment 
to this aspect of our security, and I do not want to confirm an 
individual with this record to a position that is responsible, in part, 
for advancing U.S. interests by upholding and promoting international 
nonproliferation agreements.
  Finally, I would note that the timing of the vote on Mr. Bolton's 
nomination could not be worse. From Kyoto to missile defense, the Bush 
administration has made a number of unilateral decisions that have 
caused great concern among our allies in Europe and Asia. And, there 
are reports that more could be on the way--such as ``unsigning'' the 
ICC Treaty. I firmly believe that confirming someone to this important 
position who has limited experience on these issues, lacks the 
diplomatic temperament for the job, and has, at best, a mixed record of 
supporting international arms control agreements, sends yet another 
negative signal to our friends and allies.
  We need a person in this important position who will help craft a 
bipartisan foreign policy and work with our friends and allies to make 
America more secure. Mr. Bolton is not that person, and I will vote 
``no'' on his nomination.
  Mr. President, I recognize that Mr. Bolton will receive sufficient 
votes to become our next Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and 
International Security. I hope that the fact that he was only reported 
out of the Foreign Relations Committee by a margin of one vote, and 
that several senior Senators with expertise and many years of 
experience in arms control opposed his nomination, will cause him to 
reflect on the way he has approached these issues in the past. This is 
a position of great responsibility. He should use it to demonstrate 
that he can work constructively and respectfully with people, whether 
they agree or disagree with him, to help advance the interests of this 
nation.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to oppose the nomination 
of John R. Bolton as Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and 
International Security. In many ways, Mr. Bolton's record, writing, and 
views lead me to believe that he is the wrong man at the wrong time for 
this position.
  In considering this nomination I am most troubled by the fact that 
Mr. Bolton's views appear to be antithetical to both arms control and 
international law.
  Although he has supported some security treaties, on the whole he has 
been highly critical of most of the treaties that comprise the 
foundations for nuclear arms control and nonproliferation.
  When the Senate voted down the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, CTBT, 
for example, it is my understanding that Mr. Bolton applauded the 
defeat of ``the illusionary protection of unenforceable treaties''.
  Arms control treaties and international efforts to control the spread 
of weapons of mass destruction are not the only way to address these 
threats, the United States must have other means and capabilities as 
well, but they have a place in U.S. foreign policy, and can play a 
useful role in safeguarding American interests.

[[Page 7263]]

  The CTBT, START, the Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty, the Non-
Proliferation Treaty, the Chemical Weapons Convention, the Missile 
Technology Control Regime, alongside many other treaties negotiated by 
Presidents of both parties, can and do play an important role in 
reducing the risk to the United States posed by the proliferation of 
Weapons of Mass Destruction.
  Likewise, Mr. Bolton has made comments that suggest that 
international treaties do not have the force of law, and raising 
questions about the commitment that states should have to their treaty 
obligations.
  He has written that ``while treaties may well be politically or even 
morally binding, they are not legally obligatory. They are just not 
`law' as we apprehend the term.''
  In arguing that the U.S. has no obligation to pay our share of the 
United Nations dues Mr. Bolton argued that ``Treaties are `law' only 
for U.S. domestic purposes. In their international operation, treaties 
are simply `political' obligations.''
  This approach suggests that international treaties are unenforceable; 
that signatories may pick and choose the sections they will adhere to; 
and that the United States, by virtue of our superpower status, may 
insist on other countries fulfilling their treaty obligations while 
reserving the right to ignore our own.
  But how can the United States hope to compel other countries, 
especially states like Iraq, Iran, and North Korea to respect 
international law and norms on non-proliferation if the top State 
Department official for arms control does not?
  Mr. Bolton has also suggested that ``There is no such thing as the 
United Nations . . . .''
  How effective can United States leadership be in the international 
community if these views guide U.S. policy? In some ways, Mr. 
President, I think the recent loss of the U.S. seat on the Human Rights 
Commission provides us an early indication of what answer we can expect 
from the rest of the international community to that question.
  There are also questions about Mr. Bolton's approach to a range of 
other issues on the international agenda which, as Under Secretary and 
a senior member of the State Department decision-making apparatus, he 
will play a role.
  Mr. Bolton's views on Taiwan appear to be out of step with thirty 
years of bipartisan U.S. policy as well as the views of the Bush 
Administration.
  He has stated that he believes Taiwan to be a state, and argued for 
full diplomatic recognition of Taiwan and an end to the ``One China'' 
policy.
  Over the past thirty years the Taiwan Relations Act, the ``One 
China'' policy, the three Joint Communiques, and a policy of purposeful 
ambiguity with regards to U.S. defense commitments to Taiwan have 
served U.S. interests, and those of Taiwan, extremely well. It is an 
approach that has provided the United States with both leverage and 
maneuvering room in our relations with both China and Taiwan, and has 
had the support of six Presidents from both parties as well as broad 
bipartisan backing in Congress.
  These are but a few examples of the sort of worrisome issues which 
lead me to believe that Mr. Bolton is not the right person to serve as 
Under Secretary.
  The questions that have been raised about Mr. Bolton's views on a 
range of arms control, international law, and other national security 
issues strongly suggests that Mr. Bolton does not meet the necessary 
threshold for confirmation by the Senate as Under Secretary of State. I 
do not make this statement lightly, but I do so with the recognition 
that the Senate has the right, the obligation, to provide advice and 
consent to the President's appointments.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing the confirmation of Mr. 
Bolton.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise to urge my colleagues to oppose 
the nomination of Mr. John Bolton to become the Under Secretary of 
State for Arms Control and International Security. Many in the Senate 
disagree with the substantive views of Mr. Bolton on particular policy 
issues and will oppose his nomination on the basis of those 
disagreements. I too disagree with Mr. Bolton on a range of important 
foreign policy issues, but my opposition to his nomination comes from 
broader and deeper concerns. First among them, I believe that whoever 
serves in this position should be experienced, knowledgeable, and 
philosophically compatible with the use of arms control as a legitimate 
tool of the national security objectives of the United States. Arms 
control treaties have served our national security interests well 
during past decades, including important major treaties signed and 
ratified by Republican administrations. Notable among the many 
important and effective arms control contributions by Republican 
administrations are the Non-Proliferation Treaty, the ABM Treaty and 
Protocol, the Threshold Test Ban Treaty, and the Intermediate Nuclear 
Forces Treaty. I would hope that Mr. Bolton would uphold this tradition 
within his party, but I am skeptical that will be the case. If so, our 
nation stands to become more insecure rather than less in the volatile 
world of today's international system.
  Recent testimony by Mr. Bolton suggests that he may not be as 
knowledgeable about the significant contributions of prior arms control 
treaties as he should be, and, more importantly, may not be inclined to 
support arms control as a useful mechanism to achieving national 
security goals. In his confirmation hearing before the Senate Foreign 
Relations Committee, for example, when asked about his views regarding 
whether the ABM Treaty is in force, he withheld his own views on this 
very important matter which now lies at the center of the most 
significant national security debate in our country as well as within 
the international community. It seems to me that if the Senate is to 
confirm a nominee for this important position as Under Secretary of 
State for Arms Control, it would not be unreasonable to expect that 
nominee, even if we are in disagreement, to have a well-developed, 
articulate view of this critical question. I believe that the Senate 
and the American people have a right to expect that someone who would 
assume this key advisory position would be able to answer that question 
in an informed, straightforward way. I'm concerned that we still don't 
know if Mr. Bolton is well-educated on the validity and utility of the 
ABM Treaty. I for one am reticent to hand over the keys to a car when I 
don't know where the driver is going to take me. The ABM Treaty is so 
vitally important, I believe the American people have a right to know 
where Mr. Bolton wants to go.
  In his writings and testimony, Mr. Bolton referred generically to 
treaties that are unenforceable and that provide only illusory 
protections. He would include the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty in that 
category, a belief that suggests to me a lack of understanding about 
our verification capabilities with respect to countries which might 
seek to initiate a nuclear weapons program as well as nuclear weapons 
states which might seek to advance their own capabilities in any 
militarily significant way. Though the Senate has not thoroughly 
debated this question, the experts I have spoken with assure me that 
the CTBT is verifiable consistent with our highest priority 
nonproliferation national security concerns. Before voting to confirm 
Mr. Bolton, the Senate should know more about the specifics of his 
views on this and similar matters in order to determine whether his 
views are well-grounded or simply an expression of a visceral distrust 
of arms control as a national security tool.
  I am equally concerned that his views rejecting the binding nature of 
international treaties is incompatible with the internationally 
accepted position on this fundamental legal question. In his writings, 
Mr. Bolton has indicated that although treaties may be politically or 
morally binding, they are not legally binding. I suspect that while he 
would demand compliance of other nations to an international treaty as 
a matter of law, he would defend instances of U.S. non-compliance as 
our legal right. At a time when the

[[Page 7264]]

President of the United States has spoken repeatedly of the need for 
our nation to approach other countries with humility, Mr. Bolton's view 
on this matter strikes me as completely unacceptable.
  Perhaps, it comes down to this. Every time the Senate debates an arms 
control agreement the question is asked, ``Will our nation be more 
secure with or without this Treaty?'' For those who answer ``without'', 
they conclude that the nation is more secure without making 
international commitments. Their crystal ball suggests that without 
international agreements, national self interest will be sufficient to 
ensure national security. Given Mr. Bolton's position in opposition to 
key arms control agreements of our time, I'm very concerned that he 
believes that U.S. unilateralism is the only reliable means to assure 
our national security. I strongly reject that view. Unilateralism is 
reversible and unpredictable, and in my view, portends greater 
instability among nations. Before I'd vote to confirm Mr. Bolton, Mr. 
President, I'd like very much to know what Mr. Bolton's view of what a 
unilateralist world looks like to him without the ABM Treaty, the CTBT 
Treaty, or any other arms control treaty to which he is opposed. Until 
he can convince me that it would be a safer world, I'll withhold my 
vote. I urge my colleagues of the Senate to do the same.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, as you know, I generally believe that any 
President, Democratic or Republican, has the right to appoint the 
members of his administration. That is why, over the years, I have 
generally voted in support of the vast majority of presidential 
nominees that have come before the Senate. However, I am also mindful 
of the fact that the Founding Fathers gave the U.S. Senate a role in 
the nomination process, namely that of advice and consent. This 
responsibility was given to the Senate in order to ensure that the 
President did not misuse his authority in selecting individuals to 
serve in positions of public trust or ones with significant 
implications for the national security of this country. I have always 
ought to balance these two principles, that the President has been 
elected by the American people to do a job and he should be able to 
decide how best to do it, and that the Constitution of the United 
States charges the United States Senate with reviewing the Presidential 
appointments to ensure that our national interests are being served. 
And, in juggling these two sometimes conflicting concepts, I have 
generally given the benefit of the doubt to the individual selected by 
the President.
  Very rarely over the years have I voted against nominees. On those 
occasions in which I have chosen to do so, it has been because I have 
had serious doubts about the ability of the individual to carry out the 
responsibilities of the office to which he or she has been nominated. 
Regrettably, I hold such doubts about the nomination before us today--
John Bolton to the position of Under Secretary of State for Arms 
Control. Based upon Mr. Bolton's own statements and writings over the 
years, as well as his testimony during his confirmation hearing, I have 
serious reservations about his ability to discharge his duties in the 
area of arms control. My reservations are of such a magnitude that they 
rise to a level so as to outweigh my general practice of deferring to 
the President on nominations.
  There is no question that Mr. Bolton is an individual of integrity 
and intelligence. He has demonstrated those qualities throughout his 
career--most recently at the American Enterprise Institute, and the 
Commission on International Religious Freedom. However, there is 
glaringly absent from his otherwise distinguished record, any 
substantial background in the area of arms control--the principle area 
of responsibility for the position to which he has been nominated. It 
is not only that Mr. Bolton has limited experience in the arms control 
arena, but also that in his few dealings with this subject matter he 
has expressed doubts as to the relevancy of arms control itself. I find 
it troubling that the individual that the President and the Secretary 
of State will look to in the areas of non- proliferation, arms control 
and security assistance holds that view. Arms control issues loom large 
on the President's agenda as he demonstrated last week when he spoke at 
the National Defense University on the topic of National Missile 
Defense, NMD --an extremely controversial subject with huge 
implications for United States arms control policy. NMD, The 
Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, CTBT, and the future of the 1972 ABM 
treaty are all subjects in which the President and the Congress will 
have to come to some meeting of the minds on during the coming months. 
The Under Secretary of State for Arms Control will have to play a 
pivotal role in facilitating that process. Mr. Bolton's having a 
dismissive attitude toward arms reduction and arms control right from 
the start gives him very little credibility with those of us who care 
deeply about arms controls issues and are concerned about the direction 
the Administration appears to be heading in this area.
  With respect to CTBT and other international treaties, Mr. Bolton has 
stated that he does not believe that these agreements are legally 
binding on the United States, but rather are ``political obligations.'' 
This stance is contrary to United States interests of promoting respect 
for international law and upholding the good faith agreements entered 
into among our allies to honor these treaties. In addition, such 
statements in the area of arms control, by the person who will occupy 
the very post charged with upholding our treaty obligations, not only 
diminishes our credibility in the eyes of our allies, but also 
compromises the best interests of our national security. Arms control 
is a global issue, not an American one, and while we must forge 
policies consistent with America's interests, we cannot create policy 
in a vacuum, and to act unilaterally on an issue of such import would 
be foolish.
  In terms of the ABM treaty, I believe that President Bush is correct 
when he says that the world is quite different today than it was in 
1972 when the treaty was first entered into with the then Soviet Union. 
Clearly every word of that treaty should not be cast in stone. There 
may be changes to the treaty that would benefit United States interests 
without undermining the principle purpose of the treaty--to prevent a 
costly and dangerous international arms race. It is certainly 
appropriate that the President undertake a review of this treaty. But 
this can be accomplished while still honoring our current treaty 
obligations and without a rush to judgement. The ABM treaty may need 
updating, but unilaterally abrogating this treaty or any other treaty 
that the United States has entered into is a major step not to be taken 
lightly or without consultations. While Mr. Bolton has stopped short of 
calling for the unilateral abrogation of the treaty, his cavalier 
attitude toward our participation in the ABM treaty and to the 
responsibilities that we bind ourselves to when we enter into these 
international agreements is disturbing.
  I am further troubled by Mr. Bolton's views on such sensitive foreign 
policy issues as the so called ``One China Policy,'' and on the nature 
and extent of U.S. arms sales to Taiwan. I am particularly concerned at 
a time when Chinese-American relations have taken a turn toward the 
adversarial. When the characterization of the U.S.-China relationship 
as ``strategic competition'' provokes indignation in Beijing, one can 
only imagine the ramifications of Mr. Bolton's public support for the 
official recognition of Taiwan as an independent state, a position 
which contradicts over three decades of U.S. diplomacy that has 
successfully balanced our interests in Asia. Although Mr. Bolton has 
stressed that the Undersecretary of State for Arms Control does not 
have responsibility for directly shaping diplomatic relations between 
the U.S. and China, separating arms control issues from U.S./China 
policy is neither feasible nor advisable at a time when China sees 
itself, rightly or wrongly, as a target of the Bush administration's 
decisions to move forward with National Missile Defense and to sell 
arms to Taiwan.
  Mr. Bolton has also expressed worrisome views on U.S. involvement in 
the

[[Page 7265]]

Balkan wars, stating that he saw `` no tangible national interest'' in 
those conflicts. And while it is true that American territory or 
interests were not directly threatened by the bloodshed in the Balkans, 
certainly instability in Europe must always be a matter of concern to 
the United States as should human rights abuses that rise to the level 
of near genocide. I am concerned at Mr. Bolton's seemingly insular view 
of American interests and responsibilities.
  Finally, Mr. Bolton has at times been outspoken and provocative in 
his public remarks about international affairs. He has been known to 
stray from a simple statement of opinion to more controversial 
pronouncements about subjects which are approached with tremendous 
sensitivity by most foreign policy experts. As Undersecretary of State 
for Arms Control Mr. Bolton will be responsible for high level 
negotiations with allies and other governments concerning the gravest 
matters of national and international security. Regrettably, I am 
uncomfortable with the idea of Mr. Bolton in such delicate situations.
  The world we live in today is dangerous. For better or worse, the 
United States must play a major role in ensuring that there are 
safeguards to protect our national security and foreign policy 
interests. Without doubt these dangers include the possibility of the 
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. It may be true that no 
longer is our main concern a purposeful attack by another superpower, 
but rather the accidental or capricious bombing by a rogue nation. It 
may also be true, as Mr. Bolton asserts, that it is time to re-examine 
our international arms framework, but it is not a time for isolation or 
bravado. Given the the critical negotiations and challenges that await 
the new administration, there is no room for inexperience. We need a 
skilled and steady hand shaping a disarmament policy that is right for 
the 21st Century. In my view Mr. Bolton does not possess such 
qualities, and that is why I have reluctantly decided to vote against 
his nomination for this critical position.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I am voting in favor of John Bolton for 
the position of Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and 
International Security Affairs. Mr. Bolton is the President's choice, 
and I have generally supported the tradition of respect by the Senate 
for confirming the President's nominees except in rare instances. I 
disagree with some of the positions Mr. Bolton holds, particularly his 
opposition to some of the arms control treaties that were negotiated 
over many years by his predecessors at the Arms Control and Disarmament 
Agency. But I also agree with other positions Mr. Bolton has taken 
regarding America's foreign policy. He explained his positions during 
his confirmation hearing and gave assurances that he accepts and will 
respect America's obligations under international law. He is especially 
intent on working to control the spread of weapons of mass destruction 
to rogue states. I therefore conclude that Mr. Bolton falls within the 
criteria of acceptability for confirmation to the job for which he has 
been nominated by the President.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I have serious concerns about confirming 
John Bolton to be the next Under Secretary of State for Arms Control. 
The person who serves in this position is expected to supervise and 
manage international arms control negotiations and non-proliferation 
agreements and to uphold key arms control treaty obligations. Yet, John 
Bolton has said he believes that the very agreements he would be 
required to uphold and negotiate are not even legally binding.
  International arms control agreements are the linchpin of our 
national security. They have played a vital role in keeping the peace, 
increasing our security and halting the spread of weapons of mass 
destruction and the missiles that deliver them. They made a significant 
contribution towards reducing nuclear threats during the Cold War, they 
helped us reduce the presence of conventional forces in Europe in the 
post-Cold War era, and they have been an important tool in the response 
to the growing non-proliferation threat.
  Not only does John Bolton have limited experience in the arms control 
arena, but he has dismissed the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and some 
other treaties as ``illusionary protections.'' He has been disdainful 
of supporters of the CTBT and, he has been intentionally evasive about 
his views on the ABM Treaty. I question whether Mr. Bolton could serve 
effectively in this position given his views and the inflammatory 
manner in which he has communicated these views in his years out of 
public service.
  I am not questioning the integrity of this nominee or his fitness for 
government service in general. I also believe we must be careful not to 
reject nominees just because we object to their views. However, when a 
person like John Bolton is put forward, a person whose views seem to 
undermine the very purpose for which he is being nominated, I believe 
we have a responsibility to speak out. John Bolton is not an 
appropriate choice for Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and I 
will be voting against this nomination.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I oppose the nomination of John Bolton to 
be Under Secretary of State for Arms Control, Nonproliferation and 
International Security.
  The Under Secretary must be able to develop and shape arms control 
and disarmament policies in a way that helps the Nation to achieve 
these all-important goals for our country and our planet. It is this 
special responsibility of the Under Secretary to protect the United 
States by working to control the proliferation of weapons of mass 
destruction.
  As Senior Adviser to the President, the Under Secretary works with 
the Secretary of State and members of the National Security Council, 
leads the interagency policy process on nonproliferation, and manages 
global U.S. security policy. He is involved in defense cooperation, 
arms transfers and security assistance to our allies. He provides 
policy direction for the nonproliferation of nuclear missiles and 
fissile material. He has a primary role in the negotiation, 
ratification, verification, compliance, and implementation of 
agreements on strategic, non-conventional and conventional forces, 
regional security and military cooperation.
  His role is also to oversee implementation of the Foreign Assistance 
Act, the Arms Export Control Act, and related legislation. The Bureaus 
of Arms Control, Nonproliferation, and Political-Military Affairs and 
Verification and Compliance are under the policy oversight of the Under 
Secretary.
  The position carries enormous responsibilities, and I am not 
persuaded that Mr. Bolton has the vision and commitment to advance 
America's best interests, especially in arms control.
  Mr. Bolton has said that ``international treaties are `laws' purely 
for domestic purposes'' and in their ``international operation, they 
are simply political obligations.'' He has described treaties as 
useless, because they don't stop rogue states from doing what they seek 
and only restrain the U.S. from pursuing its own defense initiatives.
  Mr. Bolton has also been an outspoken critic of the Anti-Ballistic 
Missile Treaty and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, referring to the 
latter as an ``unenforceable treaty with illusory protections.''
  Mr. Bolton praised the defeat of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty in 
the Senate. He called Americans who worried that nuclear proliferation 
would threaten international peace and security ``hysterical.'' He 
described the philosophy behind supporting a treaty that bans dangerous 
nuclear testing as ``profoundly misguided and potentially dangerous.''
  The CTBT is an important part of our global non-proliferation 
efforts, and it has been endorsed by General John Shalikashvili. 
Earlier this year, General Shalikashvili, Special Advisor to the 
President on this treaty, stated in a letter to the President that 
``there is no good reason to delay ratification of the CTBT'' and that 
`` the longer the U.S. delays, the more likely it is that

[[Page 7266]]

other countries will move irrevocably to acquire nuclear weapons or 
significantly improve their current nuclear arsenal and the less likely 
it is that we could mobilize a strong international coalition against 
such activities.''
  Yet Mr. Bolton has criticized the treaty for not providing ``adequate 
protections'' and ``hobbling the United States' ability to maintain the 
most important international guarantee of peace''--which is, in Mr. 
Bolton's view, ``a credible U.S. nuclear capability.''
  I also have serious reservations about Mr. Bolton's views on the 
Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. In the years since the United States and 
the Soviet Union signed the ABM Treaty in 1972, it has been a major 
part of U.S. nuclear arms control policy. By ensuring that our nuclear 
arsenal remains an effective deterrent, the ABM Treaty prevented an 
escalating arms race with the Soviet Union and more recently with 
Russia. The treaty continues to bring significant stability to the 
U.S.-Russia nuclear partnership in the post-Cold War world.
  Mr. Bolton has contended that National Missile Defense should be one 
of the our primary considerations in dealing with proliferation and 
international security. But this view is in conflict with the Under 
Secretary's responsibility to protect our Nation against threats in a 
way that is consistent with our treaty obligations. Mr. Bolton's view 
that Russia will take advantage of any U.S. vulnerability could hinder 
essential and continued cooperation with that nation.
  I am concerned as well by Mr. Bolton's views on our relations with 
North Korea and China. Since 1996, the United States has embarked on a 
delicate negotiation with North Korea. The agreed framework has 
achieved renewed dialogue between North and South Korea, and could be 
the beginning of a serious effort to achieving an arms control 
agreement with North Korea. It has created an unprecedented opportunity 
for the U.S. and North Korea to work together. But Mr. Bolton has been 
outspoken in his opposition to the agreement, calling it an ``egregious 
mistake.''
  Mr. Bolton has stated that normalizing relations with North Korea and 
the goals it would achieve are ``entirely in North Korea's interests, 
not ours.'' Clearly, efforts to stop the development of nuclear weapons 
in the Korean Peninsula are in the United States' interest. Yet Mr. 
Bolton has also called the agreed framework an ``unjustifiable propping 
up of the North Korean regime.''
  I am concerned that Mr. Bolton presents himself as a nominee who will 
fundamentally change the objectives of his office from promoting 
treaties and arms control to urging a national agenda on missile 
defense. The policies he promotes could unnecessarily alienate our 
allies and undermine arms control and nonproliferation.
  Mr. Bolton has stated that ``the most important international 
guarantee of peace is a credible U.S. nuclear capability.'' It would be 
a mistake to entrust the responsibility of achieving more effective 
arms control, non-proliferation and disarmament policies to someone who 
believes that international security is best maintained by continuing 
the nuclear arms race.
  I am also deeply concerned about Mr. Bolton's views on the United 
Nations. As Under Secretary, he would advise the President and the 
Secretary of State on policy decisions on U.S. security commitments 
worldwide and on arms transfers and security assistance policy and 
programs. He would need to work with the international community and 
the United Nations to meet these goals. Yet, in 1994, Mr. Bolton wrote 
starkly that ``there is no such thing as the United Nations.'' He has 
said that the majority of Congress and most Americans do not care about 
losing the U.S. vote in the General Assembly. Virtually every other 
nation in the world supports the United Nations and the United States 
should be dedicated to strengthening, not weakening, it.
  The Under Secretary of State for Arms Control, Nonproliferation and 
International Security should work to strengthen our international 
treaties and our relations with other countries, not dismantle or 
destroy them. I am not convinced that Mr. Bolton is committed to these 
critical goals.
  His views do not represent a positive approach to key arms control 
issues, and I urge the Senate to oppose his nomination.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise to state my opposition to the 
nomination of John Bolton to be Undersecretary of State for Arms 
Control and International Security. I want to clarify that I respect 
the right of the President to choose those who will serve him in his 
Administration. I also recognize that many of the appointees in this 
Administration will have views which differ from my own--and those 
differences are not reason enough to vote against a nomination. 
However, in this case, I believe there is ample evidence that Mr. 
Bolton has deeply held views which run so contrary to stated U.S. 
policy that he will not be able to effectively perform his duties.
  If confirmed, statute dictates that John Bolton would be the senior 
assistant to the Secretary of State in matters ``related to 
international security policy, arms control and non-proliferation.'' He 
would oversee a number of issues including the fate of the ABM Treaty, 
negotiation with North Korea on the Agreed Framework and aid to 
dismantle Russian nuclear stockpiles. At a time when the danger from 
nuclear weapons is at least as great as during the Cold War, it is 
essential that this Undersecretary be committed to using every possible 
diplomatic option for reducing the weapons stockpile and diffusing 
tensions. Unfortunately, because of his previous statements, I cannot 
be confident of Mr. Bolton's commitment to this goal. As Joseph 
Cirincione, the director of the Carnegie Non Proliferation Project, 
stated: ``John Bolton is philosophically opposed to most of the 
international treaties that comprise the nonproliferation regime.''
  Mr. Bolton was a vocal opponent of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. 
He said that supporters of the CTBT were ``misguided individuals 
following a timed and neo-pacifist line of thought.'' He also stated 
that ``Mere promises by adversaries and rogue regimes, unverifiable in 
critical respects, simply do not provide adequate protections and may 
actually hobble our ability to maintain the most important 
international guarantee of peace--a credible U.S. nuclear capability.'' 
I would like to note that history would indicate Mr. Bolton is 
incorrect, since the United States has been able to maintain an awesome 
nuclear stockpile while complying with arms control treaties that have 
been the cornerstone of the prevention of nuclear war for the past 
fifty years. Furthermore, while Mr. Bolton is certainly entitled to his 
opinions on arms control treaties, his opinions indicate that he may 
not be best suited for a position which requires upholding and 
negotiating treaties on a daily basis.
  Mr. Bolton also does not seem to have a very high opinion of the 
United Nations, the organization with which he would have to work 
closely in developing and maintaining U.S. international security 
policy. At different points in the past few years, Mr. Bolton has 
stated that ``If the UN secretary building in NY lost 10 stories, it 
wouldn't make a bit of difference.'' He also stated that the U.S. has 
no obligation to pay its UN dues because ``The UN Charter is 
fundamentally a political, not a legal document. On finances it amounts 
to little more than an `agreement to agree.' '' Despite the fact that 
the UN may seem bureaucratic and slow to act at times, it is the 
primary instrument for international cooperation, and I believe U.S. 
participation is vital to ensure U.S. national security.
  In addition, Mr. Bolton does not appear to believe that the tenets of 
international law are binding. In 1999, Mr. Bolton asserted that, ``In 
reality, international law, especially customary international law, 
meets none of the tests we normally impose on `law', while treaties may 
be politically or even morally binding, they are not legally 
obligatory. They are just not `law' as we apprehend the term.'' Since 
the founding of this nation, Administrations have put faith in 
international

[[Page 7267]]

law and treaties created under international law and entered into by 
the United States have been regarded, as the Constitution dictates, 
``as the supreme law of the land.''
  Mr. Bolton is clearly an intelligent and capable individual. However, 
his publicly stated views and past actions indicate that he believes 
that it is in the best interests of United States security to act 
unilaterally, with little regard for the views and agreements of the 
international community. We live in an increasingly interdependent 
world. Today, it is more important than ever before to use such tools 
as the United Nations, international law and treaties to promote and 
ensure international security and arms control. I believe the 
Undersecretary of State for International and Arms Control should be 
willing to pursue these avenues, and I think the evidence indicates 
that Mr. Bolton would not be the best person for this job. Therefore, I 
will oppose his nomination.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, has there been time allotted for me to 
speak on this nomination?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator has 12 minutes.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise to oppose the nomination of John 
Bolton to be Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and 
International Security. I do so for several reasons. I say at the 
outset--and I have said to my friend and colleague, Senator Helms, the 
chairman of the committee--that my opposition to John Bolton is not 
based on a personal concern about John Bolton's overall qualifications. 
He is an intelligent, bright, decent, and honest man. Notwithstanding 
an editorial in one of the major newspapers in this country, there is 
nothing inconsistent about that in my opposing the nomination of him 
relating to this specific position.
  I want my colleague from North Carolina to know that my opposition is 
based--and which he will soon hear, and he knows because we have talked 
about it--on Mr. Bolton's views on arms control primarily. This is a 
decent and an honorable man, but I think he is the wrong man for this 
job.
  I add at the outset, I think his views on some of the major issues in 
the area of foreign policy are at odds with the stated views of the 
Secretary of State, although I am certain the Secretary of State 
supports Mr. Bolton. I am not implying that there is opposition within 
the State Department to Mr. Bolton.
  Let me give you the reasons, as briefly as I can, that I am concerned 
about Mr. Bolton's views on arms control.
  He comes to the Senate with an extensive record of Government service 
but a very limited record in arms control and nonproliferation matters, 
which, as the Presiding Officer knows, is an extremely complicated 
area--extremely complicated area.
  What we do know about Mr. Bolton's views on arms control and 
nonproliferation matters suggests an individual who questions the 
relevance of arms control agreements.
  My friend from North Carolina, the chairman of the committee, 
questions the relevance of the arms control agreements, and I find him 
to be an extremely qualified Senator. We just disagree on the issue. I 
would vote for him for just about anything. I would probably vote for 
him even for this position, but maybe I would not. This is the one 
position I could consider I would not want him to have in the 
administration.
  In praising the defeat of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty, 
Mr. Bolton referred to the CTBT, and other unnamed treaties, as 
``unenforceable treaties'' which provide ``illusionary protections.'' I 
realize some hold that view. They are not, however, people I think 
should be in charge of promoting arms control, disarmament, and 
nonproliferation matters.
  The death of the CTBT, he wrote, is a ``useful opportunity to re-
examine in a hard-headed and realistic way how international peace and 
security are really guaranteed.''
  Treaties are not the only means of ensuring arms control reductions, 
but in the last 50 years treaties and agreements have provided the 
foundation for advancing U.S. arms control and nonproliferation 
objectives. From the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to the START 
treaties, from the Chemical Weapons Convention to the Biological 
Weapons Convention, such agreements have been essential in containing 
the threat of dangerous weapons.
  Mr. Bolton has supported some arms control treaties, I might add, 
including the Chemical Weapons Convention, where he and I were on one 
side, and the chairman was on the other side. But his sweeping 
statements deriding the importance of arms control leave me uneasy 
about his commitment to the task.
  My discomfort level is increased by Mr. Bolton's questioning of 
whether treaties are even binding. He wrote:

       [W]hile treaties may well be politically or even morally 
     binding, they are not legally obligatory. They are just not 
     ``law'' as we apprehend the term.

  Similarly, Mr. Bolton once testified to Congress--recently; as a 
matter of fact, in the last several years--that treaties are 
``political'' and ``not legally binding, to the extent that they 
purport to affect relations among national governments.''
  In response to a written question, he stated the matter a bit 
differently, saying, ``I believe that treaties bind the United 
States,'' which I have difficulty, quite frankly, squaring with his 
previous writings.
  If confirmed, Mr. Bolton would supervise some of the most important 
treaty obligations. I find Mr. Bolton's views on those issues relating 
to treaty obligations very troubling--very troubling.
  I am also concerned about Mr. Bolton's limited experience in arms 
control. By law, the Under Secretary is the senior assistant to the 
Secretary of State in matters ``related to international security 
policy, arms control, and non-proliferation.''
  As a matter of fact, in the reorganization effort spurred and led by 
my friend from North Carolina, the chairman of the committee, we moved 
this position into the State Department. It used to sit outside the 
State Department. This was supposed to be--and is supposed to be--the 
primary person promoting arms control.
  I note, parenthetically, I have always had difficulty voting for 
nominees who hold views that are antithetical to or at odds with the 
responsibilities they have. I voted against, for example, fine men who 
were nominated to be Secretary of the Interior during the Reagan 
administration when they were insufficiently committed to the 
environment. So I didn't want to be a party to putting someone in a 
position whose avowed purpose was the President's, which was 
antithetical to the purpose of the organization.
  I am also concerned about his limited experience, as I said. Mr. 
Bolton does have foreign policy experience, though--I do not think we 
should underestimate that--at the Agency for International Development 
and as Assistant Secretary of State for International Organizations. He 
has held those posts.
  In the State Department, he did gain some experience in arms control, 
working on issues related to the International Atomic Energy Agency and 
the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, but these 
activities were hardly a major part of his duties.
  In the last 8 years, Mr. Bolton has written extensively on foreign 
policy, but he wrote very little about arms control. That is not a bad 
thing, but it still leaves us with a person with little experience in 
the arms control field, to which many of our senior people devote their 
entire careers.
  Chairman Helms has cited a letter from former Directors of the Arms 
Control and Disarmament Agency in support of Mr. Bolton. The signatory 
of that letter most recently in the arms control job is a man named Ron 
Lehman. I wish we had someone of Mr. Lehman's experience before us.
  I might add, Mr. Bolton is just as bright. This is a fellow who is a 
Yale undergraduate, went to Yale Law School, and is an extremely bright 
fellow. But he does not have Mr. Lehman's experience.
  When Mr. Lehman was nominated in 1989, he had already held three jobs

[[Page 7268]]

with firsthand arms control experience before he was nominated. He was 
Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Policy, where 
he dealt with U.S. nuclear policy, arms control, space policy, and 
technology transfer controls. He was the chief U.S. negotiator on 
strategic nuclear arms; that is, the START talks. And he was the Senior 
Director at the National Security Council for Defense Programs and Arms 
Control. This man came with an incredible amount of experience. In 
short, Mr. Lehman was literally steeped in arms control.
  On other foreign policy issues, Mr. Bolton has been outside the 
mainstream. He has called for diplomatic recognition of Taiwan, a 
position at odds with three decades of American diplomacy--and contrary 
to the position of this administration.
  Mr. Bolton once wrote that the wars in Kosovo and Chechnya involved 
``no tangible national interest.'' In the committee hearing, he changed 
his tune a bit, saying that there was no vital national interest in the 
Balkans.
  Nonetheless, I am concerned that Mr. Bolton's consistent criticism of 
the NATO action in Kosovo indicates a lack of commitment to the 
stability of Southeastern Europe--a position I find unacceptable for 
the person who would supervise security assistance programs to the 
region.
  I am concerned, finally, about Mr. Bolton's diplomatic temperament 
for this position, which involves the management of complex 
negotiations in a wide range of arms control and non-proliferation 
issues. Stated another way: It takes the patience of Job. I am not sure 
how good I would be in the position. These are sensitive and difficult 
negotiations. Mr. Bolton's penchant for inflammatory rhetoric gives me 
pause about his ability to handle this task.
  Following defeat of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, Mr. Bolton 
heaped scorn on proponents of the Treaty--I don't take that 
personally--who expressed concerns that its defeat marked an 
isolationist turn for the United States and might lead to accelerated 
nuclear proliferation.
  He wrote that such fears are ``indications of a profoundly misguided 
and potentially dangerous philosophy in American foreign policy,'' and 
said that such analysis is ``timid and neo-pacifist.'' He has a right 
to say that, but it is not the language of or temperament of people who 
have been in that position. Well, this senator expressed those fears, 
as did some of my colleagues.
  Mr. Bolton once said that ``Republicans are adults on foreign policy 
questions, and we define what we're willing to do militarily and 
politically by what is in the best interests of the United States.'' Is 
he seriously implying that Democrats are not adults on foreign policy 
questions and do not worry about the best interests of the United 
States?
  What does that suggest about his ability to work with Democratic 
Senators?
  This kind of inflamed rhetoric is what we might expect on talk radio, 
but we do not expect to hear it in diplomatic rooms of the Department 
of State.
  I believe Mr. Bolton is a capable person. I respect his intellect and 
his willingness to serve. But I think he is the wrong person for this 
job.
  The job of Under Secretary for Arms Control and International 
Security is a critical one--its incumbent has the lead responsibility 
in the State Department on arms control and non-proliferation. I do not 
believe Mr. Bolton has the vision or the experience necessary for this 
position.
  One final thing that concerns me about Mr. Bolton is his lack of 
enthusiasm for the proposal put forward by former Senator Baker, the 
majority leader, Mr. Cutler, a top lawyer in Democratic 
administrations, a bipartisan group, saying the most dangerous threat 
we face is loose nukes in the Soviet Union. They predicted that there 
is an incredibly greater likelihood there would be a nuclear, chemical, 
or biological weapon used in the United States as a consequence of the 
inadequacy of the Russian system protecting those systems than there 
was from anything else that could happen and suggested a robust 
investment in our policy to deal with nonproliferation issues, 
particularly as they stem from the disorganization combined with the 
incredible array of weaponry lying around Russia.
  In the questioning, particularly by our colleague from Florida, it 
became pretty clear that Mr. Bolton does not share that sense of 
urgency at all. He is in charge of the nonproliferation side, the man 
who will be advising the Secretary of State.
  For all those reasons, I reluctantly cast my vote against Mr. Bolton. 
As I said, we have been on opposite sides of issues, he and I, for a 
long time. When I was chairman of the Judiciary Committee, he was the 
main man pushing nominations for the Administration. We were butting 
heads all the time. I learned to respect his intelligence, I learned to 
respect his drive, and I learned to respect how tough he was. It is not 
that I don't know Mr. Bolton. I know him in that capacity. This is a 
different capacity. It requires a different temperament and a different 
attitude in order to promote what I believe to be the single most 
important job for someone carrying this portfolio within the State 
Department.
  I urge my colleagues to vote no, although I must tell the Senate, I 
have done no whipping. I have not checked in terms of who is where on 
any of these votes. I want to make it clear why I am voting no on this 
nomination.
  I thank the Chair. I see my friend and chairman is prepared to speak. 
I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Ensign). The Senator from North Carolina.
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order 
for me to deliver my remarks seated.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HELMS. I thank my distinguished friend, Joe Biden, for the depth 
of his explanation.
  Mr. President, I feel obliged to say at the outset that of all the 
talented and well-qualified nominees whom President Bush has selected 
for senior foreign policy positions in his administration, John Bolton, 
in my judgment, emerges as one of the best and the wisest. He is a 
patriot, a brilliant thinker, and a talented writer. But most 
important, John Bolton has the courage of his convictions. He says what 
he means he means what he says, and he says it well, which is precisely 
what is needed at the State Department.
  Mr. Bolton comes to this position at a crucial time because he will 
confront many security issues, not the least of which is President 
Bush's pledge to build and deploy a missile defense system. Proceeding 
with that plan will require close consultation with our allies and much 
hand holding with Russia. John Bolton's extensive experience in 
building international support for U.S. positions--remember his service 
as Assistant Secretary of State for International Organizations--will 
serve him and the country well.
  John Bolton comes with high recommendations and endorsements of some 
of the Nation's most distinguished foreign policy experts. Four former 
Directors of the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency have written to 
endorse John Bolton. I ask unanimous consent that these letters be 
printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See Exhibit 1.)
  Mr. HELMS. I also have at hand a letter written and signed by former 
Secretaries of State Henry Kissinger, Jim Baker, and Larry Eagleburger, 
among others, urging John Bolton's confirmation by the Senate. I ask 
unanimous consent that the letter be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                                   April 24, 2001.
     Hon. Trent Lott,
     Senate Majority Leader, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Leader: We support the nomination of John Bolton 
     to serve as Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and 
     International Security, and hope that the Senate

[[Page 7269]]

     will move rapidly to confirm him for that position. John is 
     knowledgeable, intelligent, experienced, and is clearly well 
     qualified. In prior government positions as Assistant 
     Secretary of State and Assistant Attorney General, he has 
     acquitted himself well and served our country admirably. He 
     will do no less as Under Secretary for Arms Control.
       We are strong supporters of the proposition that a 
     President should have the right to choose his senior advisors 
     and is entitled to surround himself with those who share his 
     beliefs. We well understand that some may not agree with the 
     President's position on various matters or with certain views 
     that John has expressed over the years. But we must observe 
     that all Administration appointees are expected to advocate 
     the policies of the President, regardless of their own 
     personal views.
       John has been a thoughtful scholar and also a prolific 
     writer, and contributed significantly to our national-
     security policy debate. We, ourselves, are periodic 
     contributors to newspapers and journals. Such writing affords 
     authors a precious opportunity to take strong positions on 
     issues, and to promote an open and free discussion with other 
     scholars and practitioners. If anything we need more such 
     debate, and more original analysts in government, not fewer. 
     Neither this President nor future Presidents should be 
     deprived of the services of men and women of conviction, who 
     are prepared to test their views in the marketplace of ideas.
       We believe it essential for the Senate to conform rapidly 
     the President's national security team. There is much 
     important work to be done, and we believe that the nation is 
     best served by an Administration that is fully staffed as 
     soon as possible.
           Sincerely,
         David Abshire, James A. Baker III, Richard Allen, Frank 
           Carlucci, Lawrence Eagleburger, Henry A. Kissinger, 
           Caspar Weinberger, Max M. Kampelman, Helmut 
           Sonnenfeldt, James Woolsey.

  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, isn't it significant that so many of our 
Nation's leading and senior foreign policy experts declare in writing 
and otherwise that John Bolton is eminently qualified for the 
responsibilities for which the President has nominated him? Of course, 
the issue is not Mr. Bolton's arms control expertise. The issue here is 
that some Senators oppose President Bush's policy on various matters 
and particularly the one involving missile defense. I also suspect that 
there are some Senators who just don't like the fact that the 
administration has put forward the nomination of a fine American who 
will very capably implement President George Bush's policy.
  The distinguished ranking Democrat on the Foreign Relations 
Committee, Senator Biden, who is my friend and with whom I work closely 
and pleasantly, put it honestly and forthrightly when he said to John 
Bolton during John's nomination hearing:

       This is not about your competence. My problem with you over 
     the years has been that you are too competent. I would rather 
     that you be stupid and not very effective.

  Neither of which, I say to my distinguished colleague, John Bolton 
will ever, ever be.
  I respectfully suggest that Senators should not be in the business of 
rejecting nominees because they are too competent for the job, but I 
commend Senator Biden for his clarity and honesty, as always.
  I understand the opposition of some Senators to various 
administration policies, but I do hope my colleagues will give careful 
consideration to the views of the Anti-Defamation League and other 
nonprofit organizations which have written their support for John 
Bolton's nomination.
  Again, I ask unanimous consent that letters, such as the letter from 
the Anti-Defamation League and the American Jewish Committee, which can 
hardly be regarded as conservative organizations, be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                            Anti-Defamation League


                                              of B'nai B'rith,

                                     New York, NY, April 16, 2001.
     Hon. Trent Lott,
     Senate Majority Leader, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Lott: We are writing in support of the 
     nomination of John Bolton as Undersecretary of State for Arms 
     Control and International Security.
       During his tenure as Assistant Secretary of state for 
     International Organizations, Mr. Bolton played a leading role 
     in the successful 1991 U.S. effort to repeal the infamous 
     ``Zionism-is-racism'' resolution.
       While there may be some policy areas where we will differ, 
     John Bolton has demonstrated both the commitment and 
     integrity to advance United States interests.
           Sincerely,
                                                Abraham H. Foxman,
     National Director.
                                  ____

                                                The Cuban American


                                          National Foundation,

                                   Washington, DC, April 25, 2001.
     Hon. Jesse Helms,
     Chairman, Senate Foreign Relations Committee, 450 Dirksen 
         SOB, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Helms: I would like to offer my strongest 
     possible endorsement on behalf of John Bolton for 
     Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International 
     Security Affairs.
       Over the years, Mr. Bolton has been a champion of freedom 
     worldwide and a passionate defender of U.S. interests around 
     the globe. His past experience in senior-level positions at 
     the State and Justice Departments, AID, and the International 
     Religious Freedom Commission make him uniquely qualified for 
     such an important position.
       In the case of Cuba, Mr. Bolton has consistently revealed a 
     keen understanding of the true nature of the Castro regime 
     and has forcefully rejected the current siren song that U.S. 
     trade will magically moderate the Cuban dictator's behavior.
       His nomination is of particular interest to us in several 
     other ways as well. Sober analysts talk of the continuing 
     international security threat Castro's Cuba poses to U.S. 
     interests, specifically in the non-conventional 
     ``asymmetrical'' sphere. For many years, we have been 
     concerned with Castro's involvement in the development of 
     chemical and biological weapons. This is of particular 
     interest to us as residents of South Florida, where we are 
     within easy reach of Castro's capabilities to cause great 
     harm.
       We are also increasingly troubled by the growing presence 
     of Communist China in Cuba. It is quite obvious that China is 
     developing that presence to use as leverage against the U.S. 
     in its support for democratic Taiwan, as well as to serve as 
     a strategic base to make diplomatic and intelligence inroads 
     all over this hemisphere.
       These troubling developments demand a man like John Bolton, 
     a man who sees the world as it really is rather than the way 
     he wishes it to be. Mr. Chairman, I would like to reiterate 
     our strongest support for John Bolton, not only for the 
     benefit of the freedom-seeking people of Cuba and their 
     supporters but also for the benefit for the United States of 
     America as a whole.
           Sincerely yours,
                                                        Jorge Mas,
     Chairman.
                                  ____



                                               Washington, DC,

                                                   April 13, 2001.
     Senator Trent Lott,
     U.S. Senate, S-230, The Capitol, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Lott: I'm writing in support of the nomination 
     of John Bolton as Undersecretary of State for Arms Control 
     and International Security.
       As Executive Vice President of B'nai B'rith, my 
     organization and I remain grateful to Mr. Bolton, for his 
     tireless efforts to seek repeal of the infamous Zionism-
     Racism resolution at the United Nations, during his tenure as 
     Assistant Secretary for International Organization Affairs.
       Supporters of Israel often look at the U.N. with a 
     jaundiced eye, given the harsh, discriminatory treatment that 
     country has been subject to over a period of more than five 
     decades. Nevertheless, many of us understand the important 
     role that organization can play, once reformed and freed from 
     the hypocrisy that the Zionism-Racism resolution represented.
       We speak as an organization that was invited to San 
     Francisco to participate in the founding of the U.N. in 1945, 
     and which, since the late fifties, has maintained a full time 
     U.N./NGO office in New York, and which is represented at U.N. 
     bodies in Paris, Geneva, Vienna and Santiago.
       I urge the Senate's expeditious support for Mr. Bolton's 
     nomination.
           Sincerely,
     Daniel S. Mariaschin.
                                  ____

                                              Jewish Institute for


                                    National Security Affairs,

                                   Washington, DC, April 17, 2001.
     Hon. Jesse Helms,
     U.S. Senate, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Helms: It is my pleasure to write you in 
     support of the confirmation of John Bolton as Under Secretary 
     of Arms Control and International Security. Mr. Bolton is 
     greatly admired and respected for his outspoken advocacy of 
     American interests in foreign affairs. As Assistant Secretary 
     for International Organizations, John was respected and well 
     regarded. His resume, as I know you are aware, is highly 
     impressive, but not as impressive as the man it represents.
       We believe that Mr. Bolton will be a tremendous asset to 
     the Bush administration. He is dedicated and talented, and 
     his confirmation will enhance American diplomacy.
       JINSA is a non-profit non-partisan organization with over 
     20,000 members throughout

[[Page 7270]]

     the United States who are committed to a strong National U.S. 
     Security. We have representatives from all sectors of the 
     community including over 200 American Admirals and Generals.
           Sincerely,
     Tom Neumann.
                                  ____



                                The American Jewish Committee,

                                     New York, NY, April 19, 2001.
     Hon. Trent Lott,
     Majority Leader, U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Leader: I am writing to express my support for the 
     Honorable John R. Bolton, who has been nominated to serve our 
     country as Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and 
     International Security Affairs.
       It was my privilege to have worked closely with Mr. Bolton 
     from 1989 to 1993, when he served in the Bush Administration 
     as Assistant Secretary of State for International 
     Organization Affairs.
       We shared a strong interest in the United Nations and a 
     profound concern that, as a result of the actions of some 
     member states, the world body was being diverted from its 
     central mission.
       In the same spirit, Mr. Bolton believed that the adoption, 
     in 1975, by the United Nations General Assembly of Resolution 
     3379, the odious resolution equating Zionism with racism, was 
     a stain on the institution itself that could not be left 
     standing, even though the repeal of resolutions was 
     essentially unheard of in the annals of the U.N.
       To the everlasting credit of Mr. Bolton, he spearheaded a 
     successful American-led effort to repeal Resolution 3379. It 
     took years of patient planning, extraordinary persistence, 
     and remarkable diplomatic savoir-faire, and it was finally 
     accomplished in 1991. The lion's share of the credit for this 
     political and moral triumph goes to Mr. Bolton. As a result 
     of his efforts, to many of us who care deeply about the 
     integrity of the United Nations he has achieved legendary 
     status.
       I have stayed in touch with Mr. Bolton since he left 
     government service. Indeed, we have worked collaboratively 
     under the auspices of United Nations Watch, a non-profit 
     watchdog agency established by the late Ambassador Morris B. 
     Abram, who served the United States with distinction under 
     five American presidents. At UN Watch, Mr. Bolton, who has 
     been an active board member, has once again demonstrated his 
     passionate commitment to a fair and just United Nations and 
     to a strong and effective American leadership role in 
     international affairs.
       From my experience, I can say without hesitation that Mr. 
     Bolton is an individual of keen intellect with a profound 
     understanding of foreign policy, strong principles, and deep 
     commitment to advancement of democracy and human rights.
       I wish to thank you for your consideration of these views. 
     Should you require any additional information, please do not 
     hesitate to be in touch.
           Respectfully,
                                                  David A. Harris.

  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, these groups support John Bolton because of 
his political views, because of his political expertise, and because 
of, yes, his personal moral principles.
  John Bolton is precisely the kind of citizen the United States 
desperately needs in this difficult time to have an important role in 
the protection of the American people from the threat of missile 
attack. This man is a thoughtful scholar and an accomplished diplomat 
and an honest and decent man. I urge that the Senate confirm his 
nomination without further delay.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.

                               Exhibit 1

                                                   March 14, 2001.
     Hon. Jesse Helms,
     Chairman, Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, Dirksen 
         Senate Office Building, SD-450, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: We are pleased that you have scheduled a 
     hearing date on President Bush's nomination of John Bolton to 
     serve as Under Secretary for Arms Control and International 
     Security. We strongly support the President's selection of 
     John Bolton for this important position.
       As former Directors of the Arms Control and Disarmament 
     Agency, we believe John Bolton is eminently qualified to 
     serve as Under Secretary. He brings a wealth of knowledge to 
     the position as an expert in international law and a great 
     deal of relevant practical experience as a former Assistant 
     Secretary of State for International Organizations.
       He has acquired a great deal of experience with 
     multinational organizations which have gained in importance 
     for arms control and disarmament, relative to the bilateral 
     forums that dominated the evolution of arms control during 
     the Cold War. Also, he is well suited to work with regional 
     organizations that are pursuing arms control agendas, such as 
     the Organization of American States (which deals with the 
     convention on illicit weapons trafficking). His prior 
     services as Assistant Secretary of State also acquainted him 
     with the International Atomic Energy Agency, and the then 
     emerging structure of the Organization for the Prohibition of 
     Chemical Weapons.
       As an experienced international lawyer, John Bolton is 
     superbly qualified to guide the U.S. participation in the 
     negotiations of complex international treaties and in making 
     best use of these treaties for the intended arms control 
     purposes. This is of key importance for the continuing 
     struggle to curb the proliferation of weapons of mass 
     destruction and to deal with the current proliferation 
     problems regarding Iraq, North Korea, Iran, and other 
     nations.
       Iraq may well be the most difficult case at this time. It 
     is a fortunate coincidence that John Bolton was deeply 
     involved in the formation of UNSCOM and the adoption of UN 
     Security Council Resolutions designed to reverse Saddam's 
     weapons programs. This expertise is greatly needed now as the 
     Bush Administration seeks to restore the badly eroded 
     international support for maintaining sanctions.
       Mr. Chairman, we can recommend John Bolton to the Committee 
     without reservation. He has a thorough knowledge of the most 
     pressing arms control and nonproliferation issues of the day, 
     and we hope that the Foreign Relations Committee will 
     unanimously support his nomination.
           Sincerely,
     Kennth L. Adelman,
     Fred C. Ikle,
       Distinguished Scholar, Center for Strategic & International 
     Studies.
     Ronald F. Lehman,
       Center for Global Security Research, Lawrence Livermore 
     Laboratory.
                                  ____



                                                John D. Holum,

                                    Annapolis, MD, April 11, 2001.
     Hon. Jesse Helms, Chairman,
     Hon. Joe Biden, Ranking Minority Member,
     Committee on Foreign Relations, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senators Helms and Biden: I know that the Committee is 
     considering President Bush's nomination of John R. Bolton to 
     be Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and 
     International Security, the position I held during the latter 
     days of the Clinton Administration. I congratulate you for 
     having conducted timely hearings on his nomination. I hope 
     the Committee will also move expeditiously to a vote, and not 
     allow the confirmation to be delayed over matters unrelated 
     to Mr. Bolton's fitness for office and qualifications for 
     this assignment.
       No doubt Mr. Bolton and I will find many areas of 
     substantive disagreement. However, the most relevant point 
     bearing on his confirmation is that he has the confidence of 
     the President of the United States and the Secretary of 
     State. Moreover, he has been nominated for a position with 
     vital responsibilities bearing on our national security, 
     including advancing our efforts against the spread of weapons 
     of mass destruction, leadership in formulating and 
     articulating U.S. arms control policy, assessing compliance 
     with arms control agreements, and overseeing security 
     assistance and munitions exports controls. He also faces the 
     task of fulfilling the potential of our reorganization of the 
     Arms Control and Disarmament Agency into the Department of 
     State, and keeping arms control and nonproliferation central 
     to the Department's mission.
       So long as the Under Secretary position is not filled, the 
     Department's capacity in these areas will be diminished, and 
     the Administration's ability to advance U.S. interests in the 
     world, including in the vast majority of matters on which we 
     can all agree, will be lessened. Therefore, I strongly 
     encourage the Committee and the full Senate to act without 
     delay on John Bolton's nomination.
       With thanks for your consideration, I am,
           Sincerely,
                                                       John Holum.

  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, what is the pending business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending business is the Bolton nomination.
  Mr. HELMS. Have the yeas and nays been ordered?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. No, they have not.
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  All time has expired. The question is, Will the Senate advise and 
consent to

[[Page 7271]]

the nomination of John Robert Bolton, of Maryland, to be Under 
Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security? On this 
question, the yeas and nays have been ordered, and the clerk will call 
the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  The result was announced--yeas 57, nays 43, as follows:

                       [Rollcall Vote No. 92 Ex.]

                                YEAS--57

     Allard
     Allen
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Bond
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Cochran
     Collins
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Miller
     Murkowski
     Nelson (NE)
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Voinovich
     Warner

                                NAYS--43

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carnahan
     Carper
     Cleland
     Clinton
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Daschle
     Dayton
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Feinstein
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lincoln
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Stabenow
     Torricelli
     Wellstone
     Wyden
  The nomination was confirmed.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will be in order.
  The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I would like to point out to the 
leadership and to the Members, this vote took 35 minutes. Many of us 
have hearings on the budget. We have nominees for various Secretary 
positions waiting. I think it is unreasonable to have a 35-minute vote.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.

                          ____________________